LI Network
Published on: October 21, 2023 at 16:24 IST
In a poignant case involving a girl’s suicide resulting from physical and mental torture by her in-laws demanding dowry, the Supreme Court convicted the appellants under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) and Section 498-A (cruelty against a married woman) read with Section 34 IPC based on her dying declaration.
The deceased’s dying declaration, despite severe burn injuries (70-80%), played a crucial role, as other witnesses, including her father, turned hostile during the trial.
The Court emphasized that a “dying declaration made while suffering burn injuries up to 70-80% would be acceptable if made consciously” and outlined the principles related to dying declarations in the case of Vikas v. State of Maharashtra.
Although the conviction under Section 304-B (dowry death) couldn’t be sustained due to a lack of direct connection between the dowry demand and death, the Court held that “a conviction under Section 498-A can be upheld despite acquittal under Section 304-B IPC since the former has a broader scope.”
The Court stated that “omission to frame a charge doesn’t disable the court from convicting accused for an offense proved by evidence on record.”
Therefore, it held that “accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offense punishable under Section 306 IPC, though charge was not framed.”
The Court’s decision came in an appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment affirming the trial court’s sentence for offenses under Section 498-A, 304-B, Section 34 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The case centered around the death of Akkamahadevi, who had been subjected to dowry demands and physical and mental torture by her husband and in-laws. She ultimately committed suicide by self-immolation.
The Court reiterated the key principles related to dying declarations and emphasized the need for a proximate link between dowry demand and death for conviction under Section 304-B. Furthermore, it highlighted that Section 498-A has a broader scope than Section 304-B, and a conviction under the former can be upheld even if acquitted under the latter.
The Court found that the omission to frame a charge wouldn’t preclude the court from convicting the accused for an offense if proven based on the evidence on record. The appellants were acquitted of certain charges and sentenced to imprisonment already served with a fine.
Case Title: Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka